I believe Kohl is the driving force behind the "washed-up volume-scoring wing with declining/non-existent all-around game" phenomenon. That has been a constant despite the revolving carousel of coaches and gm's. I suspect that Kohl puts pressure on his gm's to acquire scorers and lets them do what they want when it comes to acquiring secondary pieces. I don't believe Kohl values defense, leadership, or unselfishness because he doesn't understand basketball. But meddles anyway.

I'm just not prepared to throw Hammond under the bus anymore. I used to think he was awful, but as I look back on his patterns of drafting and secondary moves I start to think that he's a better evaluator of talent than we give him credit for. I don't really believe that he would pursue guys like Maggette, Jax, or Ellis if he was given complete autonomy. This is the same guy who let CV and Sessions walk for nothing and traded Mo for Ridnour. The Bucks usually resign guys like that and regret it immediately, but since they were so awful with those guys I believe it was the one season where Kohl gave his gm permission to cut ties with his box score darlings. I don't believe Hammond's the one who's in love with one-dimensional scorers. I think it's Kohl.

I think Hammond's overall body of work has been above average or even excellent except when it comes to the high-profile decisions involving overpaid vets. Those are the decisions in which Kohl is most likely to meddle. Putting two and two together, I believe (but have no direct proof) that Hammond is a pretty astute evaluator of talent who's under a lot of pressure to do things that he normally wouldn't do because of Kohl. He's stuck trading for whatever big-name, over-rated, overpaid scorers are available because Kohl insists on making a splash.

When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.

crkone wrote:Larry Harris could get what he wanted in trades, he was a smooth operator and could convince Kohl with what he wanted. I swear that Harris and Hammond were polar opposites.

Yes, but Harris's personal bias was in favor of one-dimensional scorers. He built "on-paper" teams, so his vision was compatible with Kohl's.

Imagine if Hammond actually did want to trade Redd for expiring contracts and a draft pick, or if he wanted to let Salmons walk for nothing, or if he insisted on letting Maggette rot on the bench rather than moving down in the draft to get a replacement whom Kohl and the casual fans would deem worthy of starting. I think Hammond might have wanted those things, but never would have been allowed to enact his complete vision.

I'm not 100% sure of this or anything. I'm just suggesting a reasonable alternative interpretation of events, really.

When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.

paulpressey25 wrote:If you analyze all of Hammonds moves the last five years and use the context of timing, salary cap impact and level of assets received back........his best deal was the Bogut trade.

Ugh. That was arguably his worst move on par with the Alexander disaster, especially when you factor in what was readily available. The Bucks had a chance to be well positioned for the next few seasons at least. Instead ... Swag.

His best draft pick right now appears to be Sanders with Moute a close second based on value. His best FA signing I would say would be Dunleavy. His best trades were the Salmons and RJ to San Antonio deals (once you factor in Delfino). Both moves played significant roles on what turned out to be a good team.

However, you slice it the team's record since he took over does nothing to provide evidence Hammond should keep his job after this season, barring a miraculous playoff run.

In terms of actual impact on wins, his best move was Salmons. And it didn't even remain a great move because said move led to us overpaying him. If one of these draft picks turns into an all-star (unlikely), that will trump the Salmons move, but when your best move is a guy playing way above his career norms for 30 games to lead you to a first round exit, that's not good.

There is no way Hammond should be retained. Our best player today is worse than our best player when he came in, without any question, and in five seasons he was unable to land one long-term efficient 18ish ppg scorer. Zero playoff series wins. See ya.

paulpressey25 wrote:If you analyze all of Hammonds moves the last five years and use the context of timing, salary cap impact and level of assets received back........his best deal was the Bogut trade.

That's about all you need to know about John Hammond's work here.

Had he made the Houston deal instead maybe we would've had the assets to get Harden? maybe?

DocHoliday wrote:Had he made the Houston deal instead maybe we would've had the assets to get Harden? maybe?

Oh, I'm not saying there weren't a lot of better moves out there. There were.

I'm just pointing out that he was able to sell out on a player owed $27 million over the next two years who might not even play one entire year. In the process he got real assets and cap space. And he sold before the league figured out there was a cartilage tear requiring microfracture.

Now were the assets we got back ones that "fit" or made sense? No. But save for the John Salmons deal which he was presented with by the Bulls, this was the only trade where you can say our "asset" side of the ledger outweighed what we parted with.

But my bigger point is that there are no great Hammond trades to celebrate.

N8Frog wrote:Wickett says Monta is 100% gone after this season, no if's, and's, or but's about it. Hopefully they can trade him.

There's 11 million reasons this isn't as cut and dry as the esteemed NBA guru Wickett would like to think. Sure, Monta may not like it here, but will another team come close to giving him that kind of money?

This is about winning basketball games. This is about winning Championships.

paulpressey25 wrote:this was the only trade where you can say our "asset" side of the ledger outweighed what we parted with.

I'm struggling to see what "assets" the Bucks got. Ellis? Let's see what he's turned into and if anybody will even want the guy. Udoh? An OK backup big is suddenly cause for celebration? I don't see anything about that return that would lend anyone to feel like the Bucks made out like bandits. Things become much much worse when you consider what the Bucks turned down and what that ultimately may have led to instead.

N8Frog wrote:Wickett says Monta is 100% gone after this season, no if's, and's, or but's about it. Hopefully they can trade him.

There's 11 million reasons this isn't as cut and dry as the esteemed NBA guru Wickett would like to think. Sure, Monta may not like it here, but will another team come close to giving him that kind of money?

Worth noting that he watched Baron Davis do the same thing and he very much looked up to and idolized Baron (yes that explains a lot.) For better or worse, it was Baron, Whackson and Al no-sHarrington that taught Monta the NBA ropes and I would not be surprised to see him emulate Baron's opt-out exit at the expense of a lot of salary to try to go to a team where he wants to live/play. The other consideration is that if he goes to the bench next year for the Bucks or whomever, he may not be able to get nearly as much long term guaranteed money (even at lower annual salary than his remaining current contract year) as he may be able to secure this offseason while still sporting starter per-game numbers. He has $11MM left of the current deal, but might still be able to sign a long term deal for >25MM over 3 or 4 years on the open market this summer. If he opts in he gets his 11MM next year, but may(likely) be in a significantly weaker position seeking a long term contract after possibly becoming a 6th man next season. Knowing he won't get 11Mil per again, the long term money becomes a significant issue vs. the annual salary on his expiring deal.

If you guys fall out of the playoffs I would bet on him opting out to get a long term deal while he can.

I'm in complete and total shock that anyone would take the time to defend Hammond. He sucked at win now and he sucked at adding meaningful talent. So he sucks at pretty much the two things you expect from a GM. If he was the Packers GM and had these results he would have been run out of town years ago. Five years is more than enough time to show what you got and he ain't got jack...

Remember, Europa, I'm not comparing this to possible outcomes he could have done like trading healthy Bogut for Horford last year or accepting Steph Curry instead of what he took.

I'm merely looking at the fact a new owner or new GM taking over today has the potential for a load of cap space this summer if Monta opts out. Or you could have traded Monta earlier or in the next month for some type of asset. And we got another $10mm of cap space from Capt. Jack that they used on Ersan. Plus a good backup center which Hammond wasn't able to acquire anytime prior. And on the timing, had Hammond not dealt Bogut for something last March, we'd be sitting with $27 million of microfracture on the bench.

Show me other Hammond trades where the assets we acquired had the ability to be used in a very positive way. Other than Salmons, there just aren't any. Capt. Jack, Maggette, RJ, dropping 12 spots in the 2011 draft.

I believe (but have no direct proof) that Hammond is a pretty astute evaluator of talent who's under a lot of pressure to do things that he normally wouldn't do because of Kohl. He's stuck trading for whatever big-name, over-rated, overpaid scorers are available because Kohl insists on making a splash.

I think Hammond could contribute as an assistant GM. Think he has some knack for talent. But as GM, he's promoted to his level of incompetence. At least, the result is incompetence when he has to mind meld with Kohl.

He's like a bookkeeper, with lousy people skills. Send him into the marketplace to negotiate, and he's out of his depth. Gets played. Makes decisions for trivial reasons. Lacks street smarts. All of which may once have made him a mirror-image fit with Kohl. But Kohl sours on his GMs with a few years time (like he certainly did with the eccentric but interesting Harris), and seems to have soured on Hammond.

Remember, Europa, I'm not comparing this to possible outcomes he could have done like trading healthy Bogut for Horford last year or accepting Steph Curry instead of what he took.

I'm merely looking at the fact a new owner or new GM taking over today has the potential for a load of cap space this summer if Monta opts out. Or you could have traded Monta earlier or in the next month for some type of asset. And we got another $10mm of cap space from Capt. Jack that they used on Ersan. Plus a good backup center which Hammond wasn't able to acquire anytime prior. And on the timing, had Hammond not dealt Bogut for something last March, we'd be sitting with $27 million of microfracture on the bench.

Show me other Hammond trades where the assets we acquired had the ability to be used in a very positive way. Other than Salmons, there just aren't any. Capt. Jack, Maggette, RJ, dropping 12 spots in the 2011 draft.

Realize I'm giving faint praise here.

The problem Press is this isn't a hypothetical. We know what the Bucks could have gotten. Instead, they chose (in my opinion) the lesser option. There's no speculation necessary. We know what the offer was and we know what the Bucks ultimately did. Given how far superior (again in my opinion) the initial offer was it's impossible for me to consider the Bogut trade to be anything other than a failure and a massive one at that. If we want to speculate I'll say again that the Bucks were holding all the cards there given how badly the Warriors wanted Bogut so on top of what GS offered I think if Hammond had played the situation right he could've bent them over and asked for even more. They wanted Bogut bad.

Europa, we could have done better. No arguments there. Just pointing out that it was the only major trade he made save for Salmons where we actually won on assets.

Chuck sums up my thoughts well. Hammond is a great #2 guy who would help a good GM find people like Larry Sanders. But he's way out of his league in the ability to navigate the modern NBA with all the financial considerations of today. And he doesn't have the people skills to negotiate with other GM's nor with Kohl.

paulpressey25 wrote:Europa, we could have done better. No arguments there. Just pointing out that it was the only major trade he made save for Salmons where we actually won on assets.

And I disagree that the Bucks "won" that trade. I think it was a failure and easily one of the worst moves of Hammond's tenure. I think Hammond's made a number of far superior trades. The two I listed and I'd include Mo for Ridnour too. In fact, I've always thought Hammond did quite well with most of his trades in his first two seasons. But Season 3 everything started going in the toilet and little has positively surfaced since then.

"The most immediate task for Boylan will be finding a consistent rotation in the frontcourt. Guards Ellis and Brandon Jennings have started all 32 games, but eight different players have made a start at either forward or center. Hammond hasn't made things easy on his coach by drafting up front the last three years (Larry Sanders, Tobias Harris and John Henson), adding another young player (Ekpe Udoh) via trade and accumulating veterans Samuel Dalembert, Drew Gooden and Ersan Ilyasova. None of the group has been able to stand out and secure a consistent spot, leaving the lineup in constant flux. ... Bucks management faces bigger questions after the season. Hammond is also in the final year of his contract, and since winning Executive of the Year in 2009-10, his moves have left Milwaukee stuck on the treadmill of mediocrity. Sneaking into the playoffs may not be enough to save Hammond's job."